Euthansia

[Tharzon]

Originally posted by Rosuav
This is in complete contrast to "able to do absolutely anything they want, with no exceptions". If you have to get a judge's OK before you're allowed to do something, then what happens if the judge says no? That's an exception. If you want utter and total freedom, then NOBODY - no government, no law, no judge, no magistrate, no police officer - can tell you not to do something. Regulation of any sort is in contrast to pure freedom. Note that "pure freedom" is not the ultimate expression of freedom. The GPL is a legal document designed to guarantee freedom - so it restricts your ability to restrict others' freedom. It's regulation too, if a somewhat unconventional type.

Um...did you finish reading that statement Rosuav? "But if we really feel that's the only way, and we both consent to it, we should absolutely be able to do it. "

The judge is simply there to establish that both parties understand what they're intending to do, and consent to it freely and without reservation. If they consider it their job to try and talk you out of doing something particularly stupid, so be it, but you aren't there for permission, you're there to log your informed consent.

[Rosuav]

Yes, I did read your statement. On the one hand you said: "Consenting adults of sound mine should be able to do absolutely anything they want, with no exceptions." That basically is saying that nobody should tell them they're not allowed to do something. If Fred and Joe want to go off and stab each other to death in an abandoned mine, then they should be allowed to do it, is what you're saying. And then in the followup, you say: "this would be a HIGHLY regulated process, with very STRONG force of law". What is the law allowed to do? If it's highly regulated, that means someone other than Fred and Joe has the power to control them. That's what regulation IS. Even if it's just "prove that you really both know what you're getting into and are willing for it to happen" is, to an extent, a chance for someone to say "He doesn't know what he's getting into, so you are not allowed to do this". Someone other than Fred and Joe has the power to order them not to do it.

[Maelgrim]

The whole business is a bit of a can of worms, but when death is inevitable and unavoidable, I can't see how it's really moral to deny the person a choice of how.

I mean, if I was to die in three weeks, two of which would be a hellish labyrinth of pain, I'd probably say "You know what? Fuck that, cyanide, my arm, huge dose, go." and so what if cyanide is excruciatingly painful? It's an hour or two of pain, tops, when compared with the fucking MONTHS or YEARS docs are currently obligated to keep you 'alive' in hospital.

[Maelgrim]

If Fred and Joe want to go off and stab each other to death in an abandoned mine, then they should be allowed to do it, is what you're saying.

Yeah, this is where my idiocy intolerance starts kicking in. If Fred and Joe both sign declarations saying 'We the undersigned, under no duress and wakka wakka, blah blah, do wish to stab each other in the face until death' I say "Huzzah for natural selection." Does humanity REALLY benefit from keeping around the sort of mouth-breathers who would make that sort of descision?

I know it sounds callous, but sometimes the greatest thing a person can do with their lives is simply to serve as a warning example to others.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Maelgrim
Yeah, this is where my idiocy intolerance starts kicking in. If Fred and Joe both sign declarations saying 'We the undersigned, under no duress and wakka wakka, blah blah, do wish to stab each other in the face until death' I say "Huzzah for natural selection." Does humanity REALLY benefit from keeping around the sort of mouth-breathers who would make that sort of descision?

I know it sounds callous, but sometimes the greatest thing a person can do with their lives is simply to serve as a warning example to others.

And then you give them a Darwin Award. But my question to Tharzon is, what's the role of the judge? Maelgrim, what you've said ties in with Tharzon's first statement - that people should be allowed to do anything, provided that all parties consent. Nothing to do with a judge's permission. (If you need a witness to countersign the consent documents, to prove that it's not forged or under duress or anything, then anyone will do - or if you want someone with some officialness, post office staff are authorized to witness a whole lot of things already. Still doesn't need to be a judge.)

[Maelgrim]

I'd say what he's getting at with the judge is the necessity of demonstrating the fact that the descision was made without duress and with a sound (well...) mind. Same as a crazy fuck can't leave his entire fortune to his cat.

Oh, wait, some crazy fuck did... Shit, bad example, anyway, point stands.

I reckon a JP's rubber stamp would do just as bloody well. Or use the current 'withness' list. (Bank manager, PO clerk, Councilman, etc.)

Just a way of formalizing it so they can't turn around and go 'we didn't want this! LITIGASHON!' later.

Or at least that's the way I read it.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Maelgrim
I reckon a JP's rubber stamp would do just as bloody well. Or use the current 'withness' list. (Bank manager, PO clerk, Councilman, etc.)

Yeah, that was what I was thinking of. There's a whole list of people who have an officialness score that lets them witness certain things for passports and stuff.